Obama, Stephanopoulos Spar Over Definition of 'Tax'

[Huh?]

What is a FEE but a TAX?

A good question for the up-and-comer republican enabler dipshit, Tim Pawlenty, from Minnesnowta.

He raised the per-pack tax on smokes by a buck, after taking the "no new taxes" pledge, and cynically called it a "fee".

I wonder...if Stephanopoulos were to ask that of Pawlenty would it then become a LMSM gotcha question?

 

[Contumacious]

I don't know about every state but most and certainly here in Arizona, if you don't maintain insurance on your vehicle the government suspends the tags on your car...guess what happens if you get caught driving it?]

The reason being that the insurance companies own the legislators. The PRETEXT is that you are driving on state owned roads.


So there will always be a pretext for the motherfuckers to dictate , harass and incarcerate.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

 

[Ame®icano]

It's pretty sad when someone has to read you the definition out of the dictionary.

It's sad too when providing definition of what are you saying in order to support your argument is called "stretching".

Looks like redefining what "is" is... all over again.

 

[Oddball]

What is a FEE but a TAX?

A good question for the up-and-comer republican enabler dipshit, Tim Pawlenty, from Minnesnowta.

He raised the per-pack tax on smokes by a buck, after taking the "no new taxes" pledge, and cynically called it a "fee".

I wonder...if Stephanopoulos were to ask that of Pawlenty would it then become a LMSM gotcha question?

That would be a totally fair question that would rightly make that little weasel squirm.

 

[Ame®icano]

In that interview Obama said: "You and I are paying $900, on average, in higher premiums because of uncompensated care."

If everyine is paying it, that would, in effect, be a "tax" that everyone pays because some are not insured, and that extra premium cost goes to cover their needs, not your own. If you're required to buy the items by law or pay the fine, and therefore the authority is making you pay, then, that IS the tax.

Based on what Obama said, we are all paying $900, or $76 per month for uninsured already. Not that I agree to pay for those who can pay for themselves, but if tax of $76 a month is gonna solve the problem for all uninsured Americans, that sounds like pretty good deal to me. Just call it what it is, a tax. And don't mess with what I already have.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

The fact that these two would "spar" over the definiation of "tax" shows what total pinheads they are.. BOTH of them. We ALL know what a tax is.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Clinton still takes the cake with his query as to what the definition of "is" is. How dumb are these people?

 

[Ame®icano]

Does anyone, especially LW bots, remember Obama's campaign where he was accusing McCain of wanting to tax health care? This video will also remind you of his false campaign promises.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6OzxuFnqhSE]YouTube - Barack Obama on John McCain's Health Care Plan[/ame]

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

President Obama and ABC News' George Stephanopoulos got in a testy sparring match Sunday over whether the president's health care plan includes a tax increase, leading the host to look up the Merriam-Webster dictionary definition of taxes.

In the interview airing Sunday, Stephanopoulos pressed the president on his plan to require people to purchase health insurance.

"Under this mandate, the government is forcing people to spend money, fining you if you don't. How is that not a tax?" the host asked.

Obama responded: " No, but -- but, George, you -- you can't just make up that language and decide that that's called a tax increase."

Stephanopoulos then offered the dictionary definition.

"I don't think I'm making it up. Merriam-Webster's dictionary: 'Tax, a charge, usually of money, imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes,'" he said.

Visibly taken aback, Obama rejected the notion it was a tax increase and said pulling the dictionary out was a sign the host was "stretching" a little.

"No. That -- that's not true, George. The -- for us to say that you've got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase," Obama said.

Obama, Stephanopoulos Spar Over Definition of 'Tax' - Political News - FOXNews.com

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rL7ak__MGyw]YouTube - Obama Goes Toe-To-Toe With Stephanopoulos On "Tax Increases"[/ame]


You have to sit through Barry's rambling on to get to the tax thing, it's the last minute of the vid.

Obama denies it's a tax and when GS says to Obama "your critics say it is a tax increase" Obama replies "my critics say everything is a tax increase. My critics say I'm taking over every sector of the economy". Note, Obama doesn't even attempt to deny this. Nothing, nada, zilch.

ROFLMNAO...

Yeah...

There was the The BOY King, clambering on about how the inquisiter was making up words... So Stephenopolous breaks out the DICTIONARY and proves that he was using the word AS IT IS DEFINED; and in typical Marxist form... The Leftist runs to demand that THE VERY USE OF A DICTIONARY proves the argument is weak.

Pure ad populum drivel...

But it does prove what I've said for 15 years... IF the LEADERSHIP of the ideological Left were to try and debate their positions on message boards such as this, they would fair NO BETTER than the idiots which are already here.

Good news kids... It turns out that the BOY King is an IMBECILE; she's no brighter than Jullian, Chris, Ravi or any of the usual suspects that have their asses handed to them here, on a minute to minute basis.

Now RAVI would have LOVED to have advanced a well reasoned, intellectually sound, logically valid response to this post...

But the best she could do was to advance another flaccid Neg-Rep against my humble Board reputation, wherein she advances the impotent lie that something within this post represents a 'hatred' of women...

Now understand what RAVI is doing here...

She is attempting to use her substantial, if uncontianable, reputation power to control speech on this board.

Now RAVI has taken it upon herself to Neg-rep my account; with each attack representing 150 negative points against my meager rep-means, with every rep-cycle; meaning that she neg-reps my account as the earliest possible opportunity; through which she hopes to control two fundamental aspects of public discourse.

First, she wants to control my speech... she feels that my position that Left-think is the intellectual equivalent of the irrational female, is somehow disrepsectful to women.

When in truth, IF left-think were seen as a potential source of pride; meaning that IF RAVI truly felt that Left-think were something to be proud of, such a position would therefore be complimentary to women... thus RAVI, through her OWN ACTIONS, is saying that the ideological mindset to which SHE ADHERES, is, by default, NOT a source of potential pride and any equivalence to Whatever... in this instance women, is a denigration of whatever is being equated to it.

Secondly, RAVI and her anti-American comrades, are, through their actions, in repping themselves these absurd levels of reputation popularity, building a visual consensus that that ideological perspective to which they adhere is 'more popular;' thus in their addled minds, 'more valid and true' than that of their opposition; of which I am decidely one; and decidedly, one wherein THEY RECOGNIZE... Myself as being one of the more effective; thus one which needs to be attacked and otherwise controlled.

It's fascism of the first order kids... and it goes hand in had with everything the Left is and everything the laft stands for.


She has advanced no less than 8 negative reps against my account in the last 4 weeks.

 

[logical4u]

Strictly speaking I don't think it is a tax. But it is a distinction without a difference: you are making people pay for something they may not want.
But here's Obama once again muffing it when called to think on his feet.

It's NOT a tax. These morons are spinning again. In fact Obama is trying to help the rest of us out by forcing people WE CURRENTLY PAY FOR to get health insurance. What about this is a BAD thing?

Those that support the gov's takeover of healthcare have been telling us that it has to be done so that the people that cannot afford it, can have it (health care). This would force people that cannot afford "health care" to be fined (taxed). How are people that cannot afford to buy insurance now (due to lack of funds) going to suddenly be able to afford health insurance? And if they can't afford the insurance, how are they going able to afford the tax (fine)?

Yes, we pay for emergency health care for those that will not pay. Under this plan, we will be forced to pay for the same people's whimsical health "wants", not needs.

Allowing the gov to "takeover" (the speed of the takeover is unimportant, if their foot is in the door, they will "takeover"), is not the answer of better health care. Opening the market for competition and letting the customer/patient decide what coverage they want is.

There are programs to help the uninsured. Currently, those programs limit private insurance, slightly. There is no protection from the people that want to run this system for the people that will have to use this system. Once they are entrenched, say goodbye to your rights and your paycheck, you have signed it over to the gov.

 

[Ame®icano]

Sooo, Obama said it's not tax.

Let's see the text of the HR3200:

PART 1--INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY
SEC. 401. TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE HEALTH CARE COVERAGE.

(a) In General- Subchapter A of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new part:CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

‘PART VIII--HEALTH CARE RELATED TAXES

‘subpart a. tax on individuals without acceptable health care coverage.

‘Subpart A--Tax on Individuals Without Acceptable Health Care Coverage

‘Sec. 59B. Tax on individuals without acceptable health care coverage.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

‘SEC. 59B. TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE HEALTH CARE COVERAGE.

55
‘(a) Tax Imposed- In the case of any individual who does not meet the requirements of subsection (d) at any time during the taxable year, there is hereby imposed a tax equal to 2.5 percent of the excess of-- ...

H.R.3200 - America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009

 

[Ame®icano]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUbgngF5tPM]YouTube - Is It A Tax?[/ame]

 

[Contumacious]

SEC. 401. TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE HEALTH CARE COVERAGE.

You are wrong .

You need an attorney to translate that for you.


.

 

[The T]

YouTube - Is It A Tax?

What's going ON he asks? SIMPLE. Their Standards Bearer [OBAMA], is saying one thing and the Rank/File is DOING another. Synopsis? DISARRAY.

Neither are talking to each other, -OR- One is saying one thing, and the other is doing another, and they are in perfect concert...meaning Obama is in the PR Wing of their effort, and Baucus, and the other Democrat Marxists are crafting the TRUE intent.

Akin to a Magician distracting you with ONE hand, while the OTHER does the dirty work.

Either way? It doesn't bode well. It's a valid question.

Great Post, A.

 

[The T]

SEC. 401. TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE HEALTH CARE COVERAGE.

You are wrong .

You need an attorney to translate that for you.


.

Afraid NOT. Albiet it may be interpreted as a PENALTY? It's is STILL a TAX. You may cease with the symantics any time now.

What is a FEE but a TAX when IMPOSED by Government? Answer that, it will set your ass free.

 

[keee keee]

Forcing you to pay something to the government that you don't want to pay is a tax!!!!Then charging you a penalty for not paying that is a tax penalty!!!

 

[keee keee]

fees are also a TAX

 

[The T]

fees are also a TAX

Yes they are. And anyone who tries to parse that meaning is an idiot in my view. And we are talking Government IMPOSED fees here, so to all that will attempt to parse this with the private sector, are ALSO idots for their attempt. [So don't try it].

Good post, keee keee.

 

[Ame®icano]

Baucus bill, page 32 says this:

Excise Tax. The consequence for not maintaining insurance would be an excise tax. If a taxpayer‘s MAGI is between 100-300 percent of FPL, the excise tax for failing to obtain coverage for an individual in a taxpayer unit (either as a taxpayer or an individual claimed as a dependent) is $750 per year. However, the maximum penalty for the taxpayer unit is $1,500. If a taxpayer‘s MAGI is above 300 percent of FPL the penalty for failing to obtain coverage for an individual in a taxpayer unit (either as a taxpayer or as an individual claimed as a dependent) is $950 year. However, the maximum penalty amount a family above 300 percent of FPL would pay is $3,800.

The excise tax would apply for any period for which the individual is not covered by a health insurance plan with the minimum required benefit but would be prorated for partial years of noncompliance. The excise tax would be assessed through the tax code and applied as an additional amount of Federal tax owed. No excise tax will be assessed for individuals not maintaining health insurance for a period less than or equal to three months in the tax year. However, assessed excise taxes for those not insured for more than three months include the entire duration the individual was uninsured during the tax year.

Tax anyone?

 

[The T]

Strictly speaking I don't think it is a tax. But it is a distinction without a difference: you are making people pay for something they may not want.
But here's Obama once again muffing it when called to think on his feet.

It's NOT a tax. These morons are spinning again. In fact Obama is trying to help the rest of us out by forcing people WE CURRENTLY PAY FOR to get health insurance. What about this is a BAD thing?

Those that support the gov's takeover of healthcare have been telling us that it has to be done so that the people that cannot afford it, can have it (health care). This would force people that cannot afford "health care" to be fined (taxed). How are people that cannot afford to buy insurance now (due to lack of funds) going to suddenly be able to afford health insurance? And if they can't afford the insurance, how are they going able to afford the tax (fine)?

Yes, we pay for emergency health care for those that will not pay. Under this plan, we will be forced to pay for the same people's whimsical health "wants", not needs.

Allowing the gov to "takeover" (the speed of the takeover is unimportant, if their foot is in the door, they will "takeover"), is not the answer of better health care. Opening the market for competition and letting the customer/patient decide what coverage they want is.

There are programs to help the uninsured. Currently, those programs limit private insurance, slightly. There is no protection from the people that want to run this system for the people that will have to use this system. Once they are entrenched, say goodbye to your rights and your paycheck, you have signed it over to the gov.

and you NOTICE? There is NO real talk of TORT REFORM, that is the principle reason that Medical Costs are high, and Doctors are leaving the profession, AND to add insult to injury? Many people will NOT enter the field because of the Liability from the GREEDY Blood-Sucking LAWYERS sucking the Life out of this industry?

Tackle the TORT Reform? The industry will heal itself in my view.